The push for independent communities is the most American thing that has ever been thought of. In fact, it is the most human thing that has ever been thought of. Large, centralized powers seldom achieve enormous levels of popularity. Resistance to these entities is as old as the hills. As a result, a push for a de-facto form of the city state model is already extant in the United States, and it isn’t a fringe movement. This is the “state’s rights” movement, and it is called “Federalism”.
Federalism is a Right-Wing Idea
At the present moment, most of this push has been coming from the American Right. At least, Right-wing pundits are the ones who have the been most consistent in this matter. It is something the National Review publishes about and it is something Reagan spoke about.
This push is for Federalism, which differs from ancient city states in that these independent communities are much larger. The sentiment, however, is very similar to our own. The author of the first article, Jonah Goldberg, described it in the following way:
“People on the ground in their own communities have a better understanding of how they want to live and what they want from government. Local politicians are easier to hold accountable, and culture-war arguments aren’t abstractions when the combatants have to look each other in the eye.”
The idea appears that, in the wake of the Trump election, Liberals would be more amenable to recruitment for this idea.
Federalism is an Idea We Can Support
To an extent, the Left can be amenable. Perhaps it can take advantage of this offer. If a broken clock can be right twice a day, perhaps Reagan can be right a few times as well. We receive some encouragement from the AC/GS:
“Why not adjust the balance so that the Federal Government’s power is massively reduced, and the autonomy of the States is greatly increased? They can have their own constitution, laws and ways of doing things. Every citizen can go to whatever State most suits their inclinations.” (The Illuminati Paradigm Shift, Adam Weishaupt, Loc. 679)
Do you like our work? Want to write for us? Get in touch right here »
I would second that. Why not give the Devil his due and support a good idea regardless of the source? Career Democrats have (Machiavellian) reasons to oppose this, but why should we?
Of course, the problem of currency is immediately apparent. All states share the Dollar. Adam Weishaupt brings this up immediately. Reference is made to the problems with the Euro, and it would be easy to see the issues showing up in the United States, as well.
In the United States, the poorer states receive large amounts of money from other states via Federal programs such as Social Security. These programs help protect poorer states in events of “asymmetric shock” where certain regions become less competitive relative to other regions and lack the ability to devalue their currency as a protection measure. See an explanation below:
So, a Federalist agenda would likely require allowing states to use their own currencies.
Can Federalism Support State Currencies?
Again, the proposals are coming from the Right. This proposal is less earnest than that for Federalism itself, but it nevertheless exists and is not entirely on the fringe. In the example I linked, a Republican (who I, small world, voted against) is pushing for the State of Virginia to fund a study into the possible benefits of creating an alternative state currency.
Technically, this is currently illegal. Actually, more than “technically”. The constitution explicitly forbids it:
“No State shall . . . coin Money,” (Article I, Section 10)
Still, amendments do occur, and this section could be amended. Given the current pushes for multiple currencies (the above example not being an isolated case) it may be possible to get such an amendment on the table.
At the present these policies are aimed at getting gold-backed currencies, which would be less useful for our purposes because a gold-backed currency cannot be devalued. Still, if more parties became interested in Federalism, changes can be made to the agenda. Also, given most of the poorer states are Republican dominated, the Right might be made amenable to a more useful non-gold-backed currency. It is in their interest.
Federalism Could get the 100% Inheritance Tax on the Table
If multiple currencies are not going to be implemented, another alternative can be proposed. Given large government programs are going to be cut, the poor “red” states may be more amenable to adding an alternative program. The 100% Inheritance Tax could come in to replace all of these programs.
State governments could receive, in proportion to their populations, a share of all the inheritances in all of the country. This could be the only redistribution program conducted by the Federal government.
Of course, this is a long-shot at the moment, but to allow Federalism to proceed will force one policy or another. If Kentucky wants to cut off Federal programs and we let them, they will either push for a separate currency, alternative Federal programs or suffer the consequences of their isolation.
At the end of the day, Federalism is something the Left can get behind. Done right it could be beneficial. The trick is to move with the punches and guide the process rather than resist it or force it.
Jason Calhoughney writing for the Apollo Institute of Reason©